Parallel
בכורות 7
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
if it has changed from a camel, there is no objection. Or is there perhaps no difference? — Come and hear: If a clean animal gives birth to a species of unclean animal it is forbidden to be eaten, but if the head and the greater part of the body resemble its mother, it is liable to the law of the firstling. May we not deduce from here that even as regards permission to eat, R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body to be [similar to its mother?] — No, only as regards [the law] of the firstling. I can also prove it. For he leaves [the first clause of the above passage] relating to eating [as it is] and places [the provision of the head and the greater part of the body] in conjunction with the firstling. We deduce from here, therefore, [do we not] that only in connection with the firstling does R. Simeon require the head and the greater part of the body, but not as regards permission for eating! — No. I may still tell you that also as regards eating, R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body; and that it was necessary to state this with particular reference to the firstling. For I might be inclined to assume that since Scripture writes: ‘But the firstling of an ox’, [that the law of the firstling does not apply] until the animal is an ox and its first-born is an ox, and that therefore it is not sufficient for the offspring to resemble its mother to the extent only of its head and the greater part of its body, but the whole animal must resemble its mother. He accordingly informs us [that this is not so]. Come and hear: [Scripture says]: Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the hoof. We infer that this you must not eat, but you may eat an animal which has one mark similar [to its mother]. And what is this which has one mark? This is an unclean animal which was born from a clean animal impregnated from a clean animal. I might think that this is the case even if it was impregnated from an unclean animal? The Text therefore states: ‘A sheep [born from a pair] of lambs’, ‘a goat [born from a pair] of goats’, intimating that the father must be a sheep and the mother must be a female sheep. These are the words of R. Joshua. R. Eliezer says: The object of the text is not to allow what is [already] permitted but to add to what is already permitted. And what is this? This is the case of an unclean animal born from a clean animal impregnated from an unclean animal. Or, shall I say that this is not the case, but its pregnancy must be from a clean animal? Scripture therefore states: ‘a sheep of lambs’, ‘a sheep of goats’ in any case. Now he describes [in the above passage] the animal as unclean, therein agreeing with R. Simeon, and proceeds to say, ‘But you may eat an animal which possesses one [clean] mark similar to its mother’! — This Tanna [of the above passage] holds with R. Simeon in one thing but he differs from him in the other. Some there are who raise a question [with reference to the above Baraitha], and answer it. [The question was asked]. Can impregnation take place from an unclean animal? For R. Joshua b. Levi said: There can be no impregnation either of an unclean animal from a clean animal, or of a clean animal from an unclean animal, or of large cattle from small cattle, or of small cattle from large cattle, or of a domestic animal from a beast of chase, or a beast of chase from a domestic animal, except in the case dis cussed by R. Eliezer and his disputants, where all say that a beast of chase can become pregnant from a domestic animal. And R. Jeremiah explained that the animal became pregnant from a kalut born of a cow, adopting the view of R. Simeon. And the Baraitha states: But you may eat an animal which has one mark like its mother? — This Tanna [from the Baraitha] holds with R. Simeon in one thing but differs from him in the other. Does this mean to say that R. Eliezer holds that a product of two [heterogeneous] factors is permitted and that R. Joshua holds that a product of two such factors is forbidden? But have we not learnt the reverse of them? [For we have learnt]: The offspring of a trefah must not be offered upon the altar. But R. Joshua says it may be offered upon the altar! — As a rule, R. Eliezer maintains that a product of two [heterogeneous] factors is forbidden, but the case is different here. For if it were so, Scripture should write: The sheep of lambs and goats. Why is the repetition of ‘sheep’, ‘sheep’ needed? Deduce from here, therefore, ‘sheep’ in any circumstances. And R. Joshua? — He will explain the matter to you [as follows]. In general, a product of two [heter ogeneous] factors is permitted, but here [in the Baraitha], if this were the case, let Scripture write: ‘Ox’, ‘sheep of a lamb’, ‘sheep of a goat’. What need is there for the words ‘lambs’, ‘goats’? Deduce, therefore, from here that the father must be a sheep and the mother must be a sheep. Come and hear: R. Simeon says: [We find] ‘camel’, ‘camel’ twice; one refers to a camel born from a camel [as prohibited] and the other refers to a camel born from a cow. But if its head and the greater part of its body resemble the mother, it is permitted to be eaten. Deduce, therefore, from here that even for eating R. Simeon requires the head and the greater part of the body [to be similar to the mother]. This is proved. FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN, etc. A question was put to R. Shesheth. What is the ruling concerning the urine of an ass? Why should not the question be put [concerning the urine] of horses or camels? The question was not put [concerning the urine] of horses or camels, for it is not thick and, consequently, it is not similar to milk. [It is merely] water coming in, and water coming out. But the question does arise [concerning the urine] of an ass, because it is thick and is similar to milk. What is the ruling? Is the urine drained from the body of the ass itself and therefore it is forbidden, or, perhaps, [it is merely] water coming in and water coming out and its thickness is due to the exudations of the body? — R. Shesheth replied to his questioners. We have learnt it: FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN, AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN. Now, it does not say ‘from what is Unclean’.29
—
but FROM THE UNCLEAN, and this too [the urine of an ass thick as milk] is from that which is unclean. Some state the argument as follows: With reference to [the urine of] horses or animals, the question was not put forward, because it is not drunk. The question, however, arose concerning [the urine of an ass] which people drink and is good for jaundice. What is the ruling? — R. Shesheth replied to this. We have learnt this in the Mishnah: THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN, AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN, and this [urine] also comes from an unclean animal. An objection was raised. Why did [the Sages] say that honey from bees is permitted? Because the bees store it up in their bodies but do not drain it from their bodies. — He [the Tanna of the passage quoted above] holds with R. Jacob who said: The Divine Law expressly permitted honey. For it was taught: R. Jacob says: Yet these may ye eat of all the winged swarming things.’ This you may eat, but you are forbidden to eat an unclean winged swarming thing. But is not an unclean winged swarming thing expressly mentioned in the Scripture [as forbidden]? Rather we must explain [thus]: An unclean fowl that swarms you must not eat, but you may eat what an unclean fowl casts forth from its body. And what is this? This is bees’ honey. You might think that this also includes gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey as permissible. You cannot, however, say this. And why should you include bees’ honey and exclude gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey? I include bees’ honey because it has no qualifying epithet but I exclude gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey, since they have a qualifying epithet. Whom does this dictum that has been taught follow: Gazins’ honey or hornets’ honey is clean and is permitted to be eaten? Not R. Jacob. [The Baraitha says concerning gazins’ or hornets’ honey] that it is clean, consequently, it requires the intention [of using it as a food]. We infer from this that bees’ honey does not need the intention [of using it as a food]. It has also been taught likewise: Honey in its hive becomes unclean with the uncleanness of food, even without the intention [of using it as a food]. With regard to ball-like concretions in a fallow-deer, the Rabbis in the presence of R. Safra proposed to lay down that they were real eggs and were therefore forbidden. Said R. Safra: It was really the seed of a deer which sought to couple with a hind, but since the latter's womb is narrow and it is unable to copulate, the deer, therefore, seeks to couple with a fallow-deer, releasing its semen into the latter's womb. Said R. Huna: The skin which is over the face of an ass at birth is permitted to be eaten. What is the reason? — It is a mere secretion [but no real skin]. Said R. Hisda to him. There is a [Baraitha] taught which supports you: A skin which is over the face of a man, whether alive or dead, is clean. Now does not this mean whether both the offspring and its mother are alive, or whether both the offspring and its mother are dead? No. It means, whether the offspring is alive and its mother is dead, or whether the offspring is dead and its mother is alive. But has it not been taught: Whether the offspring and its mother are alive, or whether the offspring and its mother are dead, [the ruling is that the skin is clean]? If it has been actually taught in a Baraitha, then it has been taught. MISHNAH. IF AN UNCLEAN FISH SWALLOWED A CLEAN FISH, IT IS PERMITTED TO BE EATEN. BUT IF A CLEAN FISH HAS SWALLOWED AN UNCLEAN FISH, THE LATTER IS FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN, BECAUSE IT IS NOT [THE CLEAN FISH'S] PRODUCT. GEMARA. The reason is because we actually saw that it swallowed. But if we did not see that it swallowed, we would say that it was bred [by the unclean fish]. Whence do we know this? For it has been taught: An unclean fish breeds, whereas a clean fish lays eggs. If this is a fact, even if we see that it actually swallowed, we should say that the clean fish had been consumed and [the fish found inside] was bred by the unclean fish! — Said R. Shesheth: [It means,] if e.g., he found it in the secretory channel. R. Nahman said: if e.g., he found it whole. R. Ashi said: The majority of fish breed their own kind and therefore [when we discover a different kind of fish inside] it is as if we had witnessed the swallowing. Our Rabbis taught: An Unclean fish breeds, but a clean fish lays eggs. Whatsoever gives birth, gives suck. And whatsoever lays eggs, supports its brood by picking up [food for it], except the bat, for although it lays eggs,it gives suck [to its young].
—